university  gf 

ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 

AT  urbana-champaiqn 

BQQKSX8CKS 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/hawaiianannexati00eato_2 


Why  the  United  States  Cannot  HONORABLY 
Accept  Hawaii. 


Annexation”  Neither  Necessary  Nor  Advantageous. 


There  are  a  great  many  objections  to  the  ratification  of  the 
pending  Hawaiian  treaty,  and  they  involve  very  serious  con¬ 
sideration.  The  American  people  pride  themselves  upon 
their  regard  for  national  morality  and  honor ,  devotion  to  princi¬ 
ple  and  the  rights  of  the  oppressed.  We  fear  there  is  an  infrac¬ 
tion  of  all  these  in  the  proposition  to  seize  the  Hawaiian 
Islands.  There  is  so  much  surrounding  this  matter  that  we 
think  itvery  unfortunate  if  the  Senate  proceeds  toconsider  this 
particular  treaty  with  closed  doors.  It  is  the  rule  of  that  body 
to  discuss  all  treaties  in  secret  session,  but  there  is  nothing  sur¬ 
rounding  the  Hawaiian  treaty  that  makes  a  strict  enforcement 
of  the  Senate  rule  necessary,  and  there  are  many  reasons  why 
the  doors  should  be  open  pending  the  debate.  The  American 
people  are  entitled  to  be  fully  advised  of  the  arguments  pre 
sented  for  this  contemplated  violation  of  that  continuous 
policy  of  the  United  States  which  has  rejected  the  British 
idea  of  colonial  possessions  ! 

If  this  treaty  is  righteous,  it  certainly  can  bear  the  light  of 
day,  and  the  reasons  given  should  be  strong  enough  to  permit 
free  criticism  at  the  hands  of  the  press  and  the  people  before 
ratification.  The  whole  world  knows  of  the  treaty.  It  has 
been  published  verbatim.  All  the  nations  of  the  earth  are- 
acquainted  with  its  contents,  and  there  are  no  diplomatic  or 
other  reasons,  making  debate  in  the  dark  either  necessary  or 
fair  in  this  particular  case.  The  American  people  are  enti¬ 
tled  to  know  all  about  this  “job”  before  it  is  finally  con¬ 
summated  behind  closed  doors.  They  want  to  fully  under- 
stand  what  advantage  will  accrue ,  and  especially,  what  necessity 
exists  for  the  proposed  cession  of  islands  lying  2, 100  miles  away, 
that  has  not  existed  for  half  a  century.  Up  to  the  present 
time  the  American  people  have  heard  but  one  side  of  the 
question,  because  the  Hawaiian  “  Sugar  Trust  ”  and  Hawaiian 
politicians  have  filled  the  public  press  with  all  sorts  of  stories- 
intended  to  inculcate  false  ideas  and  erroneous  impressions. 
The  American  people  are  to-day  unconsciously  laboring  under 
delusions  concerning  this  Hawaiian  matter.  They  have  been, 


2 


saturated  with  almost  every  conceivable  argument,  thought 
or  suggestion  to  bring  about  existing  unsound  mental  and 
moral  conditions.  The  avaricious  Hawaiian  “  Sugar  Trust” 
has  been  abundantly  able — from  the  enormous  duties  which 
the  United  States  have  remitted  to  that  “  Trust  ”  on  Hawaiian 
sugar  for  over  twenty  years — to  employ  the  best  talent  and 
the  most  imaginative  and  prolific  writers,  and  the  public 
press  has  been  very  liberal  in  putting  the  “annexation” 
scheme  to  the  front  in  its  most  attractive  form,  as  something 
which  philanthropists  should  favor  and  which  the  truly  good 
and  patriotic  should  encourage. 

The  President  seems  to  have  been  brought  to  favor  this 
treaty  pretty  much  as  General  Grant  was  brought  over  in 
1869  to  favor  the  San  Domingo  “job,”  but  even  the  weight 
of  the  latter’s  great  influence  was  not  sufficient  to  break  down 
the  continuous  policy  of  the  United  States  to  abstain  from 
colonial  aggression.  The  President  wants  the  country  to  assume 
that  the  “  annexation  ”  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  as  far  away 
as  Europe,  is  “the  necessary  and  fitting  sequel”  to  a  chain 
of  events  in  our  policy;  the  “  inevitable  consequence  ”  of  our 
relations  with  those  islands  for  seventy-five  years  !  We  are 
compelled  to  challenge  that  theory.  We  assert  that  it  is  a 
mere  assumption ,  and  yet  this  whole  Hawaiian  business  is 
predicated  upon  that.  We  insist — what  history  proves,  that 
the  policy  of  the  United  States  toward  the  Hawaiian  Islands 
has  been  that  of  non-interference  with  their  internal  affairs  and 
to  resolutely  maintain  their  independence.  That  necessarily 
precludes  “  annexation  ”  as  well  as  the  domination  of  the 
islands  by  foreign  nations.  We  assert  that  the  proper  au¬ 
thority  of  the  United  States  has  repeatedly  and  affirmatively 
rejected  the  covetous  policy  ;  that  in  serving  notice  on  foreign 
nations  that  they  must  abstain  from  Hawaiian  control,  we 
were  acting  without  selfish  design  to  ultimately  absorb  the 
islands  ourselves.  Any  other  view  of  the  matter  would  cast 
reproach  upon  o'Ur  foreign  policy  and  lower  the  respect  which 
nations  are  supposed  to  entertain  of  the  United  States.  The 
evidence  to  sustain  our  contention  is  abundant  to  overcome 
the  President’s  assumption  and  it  will  probably  be  fully  laid 
before  the  Senate.  A  strenuous  effort  is  making  to  overcome 
this  insistent  policy  to  which  the  United  States  have  so  stren¬ 
uously  adhered.  In  spite  of  his  own  record,  Secretary  Sher¬ 
man  asserts  that  the  case  of  Hawaii  is  “  exceptional,”  while 
those  in  charge  of  Hawaiian  “annexation”  in  the  islands, 
have  sought  to  create  conditions  and  thus  force  the  case  within 
supposed  lines  laid  down  by  Mr.  Blaine  !  Does  a  conspiracy 
that  overturns  a  lawful  government  with  the  aid  of  our  diplomatic 
and  other  agents,  and  wrests  Hawaii  from  her  people,  make  this 


3 


case  exceptional  ?  Will  that  sustain  a  change  of  policy  on 
our  part  ? 

We  think  it  most  unfortunate  that  in  neither  the  letter  of 
the  President  nor  in  that  of  Secretary  Sherman  is  there  the 
slightest  reference  to  the  fact  that  Congress  has  a  grave  ques¬ 
tion  of  national  morality  to  deal  with  in  this  matter  !  On  a 
certain  occasion,  a  predecessor  of  Mr.  McKinley  did  not 
ignore  so  important  a  feature  where  it  was  feared  that  it 
might,  by  possibility  even,  have  some  bearing  on  a  cession 
of  foreign  territory  !  And  we  think  it  also  unfortunate  that 
neither  the  President  nor  the  Secretary  offers  any  evidence 
whatever  to  show  either  the  necessity  or  the  desirability  of 
annexing  the  Hawaiian  Islands.  The  case  should  not  have 
been  left  to  the  representatives  of  the  Hawaiian  “  Sugar 
Trust”  to  make  out. 

When  a  nation  approaches  the  United  States  as  “an  equal” 
— to  use  the  language  of  Secretary  Sherman,  and  voluntarily 
offers  to  cede  its  territory  and  its  sovereignty  without  price, 
we  have  a  right  to  discover  what  may  be  its  real  object.  There 
certainly  must  be  some  very  material  reasons  for  it,  and  they 
ought  to  be  honestly,  fully  and  fairly  stated,  in  order  to  re¬ 
lieve  such  a  weighty  transaction  of  all  suspicion  that  might 
otherwise  attach  to  such  a  gift !  In  this  case  the  suspicion 
which  certainly  has  attached  is  not  removed  by  the  preamble 
to  the  “  annexation  ”  treaty,  which  states  that  Hawaii  is  “de¬ 
pendent  on”  and  is  in  “close  proximity”  to  the  United 
States. 

Hawaii  is  only  dependent  in  the  same  sense  that  she  has 
always  been  ;  that  we  will  continue  to  maintain  her  independ¬ 
ence  as  we  have  always  done,  and  certainly  islands  2,100  miles 
away  are  not  in  “proximity”  to  the  United  States  any  more 
than  Ireland  is,  and  the  mere  fact  that  we  have  their  trade 
has  no  more  force  now  than  it  has  had  ever  since  1863 — or 
even  prior  thereto,  when  we  had  four-fifths  of  the  commerce 
of  the  islands.  And  while  the  further  statement  that —  “the 
government  of  the  republic  of  Hawaii  ” — desires  annexation 
is  conceded,  it  conveys  deception,  in  this:  that  the  so-called 
government  of  Hawaii  is  not  a  “  republic ,”  but  an  oligarchy , 
as  was  frankly  admitted  by  Chief  Justice  Judd  of  Honolulu 
last  June  in  an  interview  in  Boston.  All  this  explains  why 
we  must  look  elsewhere  than  to  the  preamble  of  the  treaty 
for  an  explanation  of  this  proposed  cession. 

There  is  no  pretense  anywhere  set  forth  by  either  the 
President  or  Secretary  Sherman  that  any  danger  threatens 
these  islands,  making  it  necessary  for  the  United  States  to 
change  its  policy  of  maintaining  their  independence — against 
all  the  world  !  Efforts  have  been  made  to  alarm  the  country 


4 


with  “  war  scares,”  to  excite  national  cupidity  and  a  spirit  of 
territorial  aggression  and  thus  hasten  “  annexation.”  But  all 
that  is  the  product  of  imagination.  One  moment  we  have 
been  asked  to  assume  that  there  was  imminent  danger  of  for¬ 
eign  domination  unless  the  United  States  annexed  Hawaii, 
and  efforts  have  even  been  made  to  have  our  flag  again  placed 
over  the  Hawaiian  government  building  in  Honolulu,  and  the 
next  moment  these  attempts  suddenly  cease  !  Time  alone  has 
exposed  the  deceptive  character  of  these  tactics,  but  they  serve 
to  reflect  upon  the  morality  of  the  cession;  they  involve  the  in¬ 
tegrity  of  the  motive  of  those  who  are  the  prime  movers  behind 
the  “annexation”  scheme,  because  there  has  never  been  a  single 
moment  in  many  years,  when  there  was  the  slightest  danger  of 
any  foreign  nation  seizing  possession  of  or  dominating  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  !  The  policy  of  the  United  States  toward 
Hawaii  for  over  half  a  century  has  been  so  well  known  and 
so  firmly  established ,  that  no  nation  would  contemplate  menac¬ 
ing  their  independence,  which  the  United  States  have  guar¬ 
anteed  and  in  which  policy  England  and  France  joined  over 
fifty  years  ago.  When  those  two  nations  in  1843 — at  the  in¬ 
stance  of  Daniel  Webster,  then  Secretary  of  State  entered  into 
a  treaty  or  protocol,  wherein  and  whereby  they  agreed  to 
consider  the  Hawaiian  Islands — “as  an  independent  State  and 
“  never  to  take  possession ,  either  directly  or  under  the  title  of 
“  protectorate,  or  under  any  other  form,  of  any  part  of  the  ter- 
“  ritory  of  which  they  were  composed,”  and  when  the  United 
States,  through  Mr.  Webster,  in  the  same  year  stated  that  the 
United  States  did  not  desire  nor  intend  “  to  secure  to  itself  ex¬ 
clusive  privileges  in  matters  of  navigation  or  trade,  nor  to 
“prevent  any  or  all  other  commercial  nations  from  an  equal 
“participation  with  ourselves  in  the  benefits  of  an  inter- 
“  course  with  those  islands,  seeking  no  control  over  their  gov ern- 
“  meni ,  nor  any  undue  influence  whatever,  our  only  wish  being 
“  that  the  integrity  and  independence  of  Hawaiian  territory  might 
“  be  scrupulously  maintained.” — a  wall  of  defense  was  erected 
about  Hawaii,  stronger  than  any  fortifications  or  any  line  of 
battle-ships,  which  no  country — not  even  the  United  States 
should  attempt  to  pull  down  !  That  policy  is  indelibly  im¬ 
pressed  upon  us  as  a  nation  with  the  seal  of  time ,  and  it  effect¬ 
ually  disposes  of  all  the  artfully  conceived  “  war  scares  ”  is¬ 
sued  to  create  artificial  conditions  and  force  “  annexation.” 
Hence  some  great  advantage  or  serious  danger  or  some  great 
national  necessity  should  be  made  to  clearly  appear  to  warrant 
a  reversal  of  this  American  policy  that  has  obtained  for  half 
a  century. 

What  has  recently  happened,  or  what  can  probably  occur, 
under  our  policy  of  half  a  century  toward  Hawaii  that  has 


5 


maintained  and  continues  to  guarantee  its  independence 
which  makes  it  either  necessary,  advisable  or  advantageous 
to  annex  those  islands?  For  instance  as  late  as  1894  the 
Senate  unanimously  adopted  a  resolution  on  Hawaii  to  this 
effect — that  the  people  of  Hawaii  had  a  right  to  establish  and 
maintain  their  own  form  of  government,  the  United  States  not 
to  interfere  therewith,  other  nations  not  to  intervene.  (Cong. 
Record,  53d,  2d,  p.  5500.) 

That  was  the  doctrine  of  Webster  and  of  all  our  statesmen. 
And  on  the  7th  of  February,  1894,  the  House  of  Representa¬ 
tives,  by  a  vote  of  177  to  78,  adopted  a  similar  but  even 
stronger  resolution.  Why  should  there  be  a  change  of  front? 
The  islands  are  safe  ;  their  freedom  from  foreign  control  is 
guaranteed  by  us ;  we  have  their  trade  as  we  always  have  had, 
because  it  is  to  their  great  advantage  ;  annexed,  we  would 
need  to  defend  them  at  great  cost  and  they  really  require  no  de¬ 
fense  now.  What  then  can  be  the  real  meaning  of  this  move¬ 
ment?  Can  it  be  “  free  ”  sugar  ? 

It  is  also  misleading  and  deceptive  to  argue  that  it  must  be 
“annexation,”  or  a  restoration  of  the  monarchy.  That  would 
concede  that  the  present  oligarchy  has  not  the  moral  strength 
nor  the  physical  power  to  maintain  itself!  But  whether  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  Hawaii — who  alone  ought  to  control,  desire  a  constitu¬ 
tional  monarchy,  or  the  oligarchy  of  the  few  sugar  planters, 
is  of  no  concern  to  us.  What  right  have  we  to  interfere  ?  In 
order  to  create  a  prejudice  among  the  American  people,  the 
case  has  been  argued  as  that  of  a  “republic”  struggling  to 
prevent  the  restoration  of  a  monarchy.  Nothing  could  be 
farther  from  the  truth  and  yet  that  idea  has  deluded  thousands  ! 
We  are  surprised  that  our  State  Department  presumes  to  call 
the  oligarchy  a  “republic”!  There  are  several  aspects  in 
which  the  constitutional  monarchy  of  1864  to  93  was  far  more 
liberal  than  the  present  oligarchy.  But  whether  it  be  one  or 
the  other  does  not  concern  the  United  States  nor  justify  our 
interposition  to  steal  a  government  under  the  cloak  of  a  con¬ 
spiracy,  and  consummate  the  job  through  “annexation”  — 
without  the  consent  of  the  people.  The  United  States  have  never 
consented  to  the  acquisition  by  cession  of  foreign  terri¬ 
tory-inhabited  by  an  intelligent  people,  without  their  con¬ 
sent.  Alaska  was  ceded  by  a  nation  having  the  power  to 
control  it,  but  quite  independently  of  that,  Alaska  had  a  mere 
handful  of  Indians,  qualified  to  neither  consent  nor  reject,  and 
we  are  surprised  to  find  Senator  Morgan  using  Alaska  as  a 
parallel  case  !  Our  republic  was  based  upon  the  consent  of  the 
people ,  and  we  may  not  impinge  upon  that  basic  principle 
and  fundamental  doctrine — to  please  the  Hawaiian  “Sugar 
Trust.” 


6 


It  is  of  material  import  to  note  the  fact  that  there  are  other 
considerations — involving  the  morality  of  this  transaction, 
embraced  in  this  Hawaiian  treaty.  The  real  object  of  those 
in  Hawaii,  who  have  long  been  concocting  this  “  annexa¬ 
tion”  scheme,  has  been  skillfully  kept  in  the  background. 
The  proposed  cession  of  Hawaii  came  from  the  State  Depart¬ 
ment  and  the  President  hot-footed  into  the  United  States 
Senate  during  the  pendency  in  that  body  of  the  Dingley  tariff 
bill,  which  had  been  so  amended  as  to  suggest  the  same  duty  on 
Hawaiian  sugar  that  it  was  proposed  by  the  bill  to  lay  on  all 
other  foreign  sugar !  This  is  only  significant  of  what  the 
ultimate  purpose  of  Hawaiian  “annexation”  is.  As  matters 
have  stood  since  t 8 7 T  Hawaiian,  sugar  pays  no  duty !  The 
United  States— under  our  “  free  sugar  ”  treaty  with  Hawaii 
has  remitted  in  duty  since  1875  about  sixty-six  millions  of 
dollars,  and  the  duty  on  Hawaiian  sugar  per  annum — under 
the  Dingley  bill,  would  be  nearly  eight  millions  a  year  ! 
That  treaty  has  virtually  expired,  and  when  it  was  proposed — 
in  the  last  Congress,  to  order  notice  to  be  given  of  its  abro¬ 
gation  and  to  levy  a  duty  on  Hawaiian  sugar,  the  pending 
“annexation”  treaty  made  its  sudden  exit  from  the  State 
Department  and  the  Executive  Mansion,  as  if  to  head  off  duty 
on  Hawaiian  sugar  !  The  tactics  resorted  to  were  successful  ! 
With  “annexation,”  the  islands  would  become  a  part  of  the 
United  States  and  of  course  no  duty  would  thereafter  ever  be 
paid  on  Hawaiian  sugar  !  Thai  is  the  electric  button  which 
many  think  the  Hawaiian  “annexationists”  are  pressing. 
We  would  not  only  pay  $4,000,000  of  debt,  but  forever  relin¬ 
quish  $8,000,000  of  revenue  a  year  on  Hawaiian  sugar  !  And 
yet  certain  newspapers  assume  to  call  this  proposed  cession  a 
gift!  It  is  seriously  asserted  that  “free”  sugar  is  the  mar¬ 
row  in  this  whole  “annexation”  scheme!  It  is  a  high  stake 
to  play  for.  “Annexation”  would  mean  that  large  sums  of 
money  which  should  begin  to  flow  into  our  treasury  from  duty  on 
Hawaiian  sugar  are  to  be  kept  running  into  the  pockets  of  a  few 
Hawaiian  sugar pla?iters  !  That  feature  of  the  proposed  ces¬ 
sion  cannot  be  eliminated  and  it  has  a  very  important  bear¬ 
ing  on  the  real  purpose  and  hence  on  the  morality  of  “annex¬ 
ation.”  The  suggestion  of  cupidity  casts  suspicion  upon  the 
treaty. 

But  there  is  a  consideration  of  even  more  importance  than 
any  yet  suggested  and  far  superior  to  our  right  to  revenue 
from  Hawaii.  The  conditions  to-day  are  practically  the  same 
as  they  were  when  the  former  “annexation”  treaty  was  with¬ 
drawn  from  the  Senate.  It  becomes  essential  to  us,  as  a  na¬ 
tion,  to  observe  how  the  Hawaiian  oligarchy,  that  now  makes 
a  tender  of  the  Sandwich  Islands,  obtained  its  political  right 


7 


and  pretended  title  thereto  which  it  now  proposes  to  cede  ! 
Thai  is  always  a  very  serious  matter  to  the  grantee  when  he 
comes  to  take  a  deed  !  Owing  to  certain  facts,  now  beyond 
dispute,  the  equitable  right  of  the  Hawaiian  oligarchy  to 
cede,  but  more  particularly  the  moral  right  of  the  United 
States  to  accept ,  a  cession  of  the  islands  from  those  now  in 
power,  is  open  to  very  grave  doubt !  It  so  completely  envelops 
this  whole  proposition  as  to  make  it  seem  strange  that  no  al¬ 
lusion  whatever  is  made  to  it  by  either  the  President  or  Sec¬ 
retary  Sherman.  The  moment  the  United  States  are  asked  by  the 
oligarchy  to  accept  a  cession  of  the  islands,  it  becomes  impossible 
to  ignore  the  morality  of  the  proceedings  that  brought  the  oligarchy 
into  power  /  Secretary  Gresham  in  October,  1893,  correctly 
and  concisely  stated  the  objection  to  the  cession  of  Hawaii 
in  1893,  and  the  same  objection  exists  to-day .  He  said: 

“  The  Provisional  Government  (now  the  oligarchy)  was  not 
“  established  by  the  Hawaiian  people ,  nor  with  their  consent  or 
“  acquiescence,  nor  has  it  since  existed  with  their  consent. 
“  The  Queen  refused  to  surrender  her  power  to  the  Provisional 
“  Government  (in  1893)  until  convinced  that  the  Minister 
“  (Stevens)  of  the  United  States  had  recognized  it  as  the  de 
“  facto  authority  and  would  support  and  defend  it  with  the 
“  military  forces  of  the  United  States,  and  that  resistance 
“  would  precipitate  a  bloody  conflict  with  that  force.  She 
“was  advised  and  assured  by  her  ministers  and  by  leaders  of 
“  the  movement  for  the  overthrow  of  her  government,  that  if 
“  she  surrendered  under  protest  her  case  woul^d  be  considered 
“fairly  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  !  The  Queen 
“  finally  wisely  yielded  to  the  armed  forces  of  the  United  States 
“  then  quartered  in  Honolulu,  relying  on  the  good  faith  and 
“  honor  of  the  President,  when  fully  informed  of  what  had  oc- 
“  curred,  to  undo  the  action  of  our  Minister  (Stevens)  and  rein- 
“  state  her  and  her  authority,  which  she  claimed  as  the  consti- 
“  tutional  sovereign  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands.  After  a  patient 
“examination  of  the  Report,  the  President  was  satisfied  that 
“  the  movement  against  the  Queen,  if  not  instigated,  was  en- 
“  couraged  and  supported  by  the  representative  of  our  Govern- 
“  ment ;  that  he  promised,  in  advance,  to  aid  her  enemies  in 
“  an  effort  to  overthrow  the  Hawaiian  government  and  set  up 
“by  force  a  new  government  in  its  place,  and  that  he  kept 
“this  promise  by  causing  a  detachment  of  our  troops  to  be 
“landed  from  the  Boston  on  the  16th  of  January  and  by  rec¬ 
ognizing  the  ‘Provisional  Government’  the  next  day  when 
“  it  was  too  feeble  to  defend  itself ,  etc.  ”  (See  House  Ex.  Doc. 
1,  Part  1,  53d,  3d,  pages  1190,  991,  218,  768,  738,  633,  595. 

Mr.  Stevens  seems  to  have  been  so  hot-footed  in  this  scheme 
as  to  have  recognized  the  conspiracy  as  a  government  de  facto 


8 


even  before  the  Queen  had  surrendered  to  the  United  States  ! 
(See  same  Doc.,  pp.  526,  529,  228,  639,  633,  943  ) 

The  conceded  facts  and  the  treaty  place  the  United  States 
in  the  position  of  not  only  being  asked  to  accept  territory, 
the  possession  of  which  was  obtained  by  duplicity,  and  the 
connivance  of  our  Minister ,  leading  up  to  and  forming  part  of 
a  conspiracy,  but  secured  to  the  oligarchy  through  the  unlaw- 
/  ful  intervention  and  intercession  of  the  naval  forces  of  the 
\J  United  States  !  Such  a  title  is  inherently  vicious.  It  would  be 
morally  rotten  in  the  eyes  of  the  civilized  world !  We  quite  agree 
with  Mr.  Lorrin  Thurston  of  Hawaii  that  it  is  a  sound  maxim 
of  the  law,  that  no  individual  may  take  advantage  of  his  own 
wrong;  but  no  more  should  a  great  nation  like  the  United 
States  take  advantage  of  the  wrongful  act  of  its  own  diplomatic 
and  other  agents  to  obtain  the  possession  of  and  a  colorable 
title  to  Hawaii,  without  the  consent  of  the  people  ! 

The  United  States  have  never  engaged  in  intrigue  to  secure 
foreign  territory  and  they  have  never  collusively  aided  others 
to  seize  possessions  with  a  view  of  ceding  the  same  to  us.  In 
fact,  we  have  been  very  cautious  and  perhaps  tardy  in  ac¬ 
cepting  territory,  even  when  taking  it  openly  through  pur¬ 
chase  or  conquest,  while  in  the  case  of  Texas  we  had  the  as¬ 
sent  of  the  people,  and  there  was  a  clause  in  the  treaty  of 
annexation  with  San  Domingo  making  the  consent  of  the  in¬ 
habitants  necessary  and  our  warships  protected  the  poll  of  the 
vote.  It  is  likewise  historically  true  that  the  United  States 
have  never  conspired  to  secure  possessions,  and  they  have 
always  rejected  the  British  colonial  policy,  and  for  many  good 
and  sufficient  reasons.  It  has  never  been  our  policy  to  ex¬ 
pand  our  national  domain  to  embrace  distant  islands.  Hence 
we  have  the  most  compact  and  therefore  comparatively  inex¬ 
pensive  nation  on  the  face  of  the  globe.  And  above  all,  the 
United  States  have  never  accepted  a  foot  of  territory  from 
usurpers  or  pretenders.  Our  action  in  either  purchasing,  or 
securing  territory  by  war  even,  has  been  as  free  and  open  as 
day,  preceded  by  neither  connivance  nor  diplomatic  de¬ 
ception,  and  hence  the  title  to  our  entire  territory  is  free  from 
taint  or  shadow  of  suspicion.  So  it  should  remain.  Let  us  not 
tarnish  that  record.  It  is  far  more  important  to  us  in  pros¬ 
pectively  dealing  with  foreign  nations,  than  Hawaii. 

To  invest  a  nation  with  the  possession  and  sovereignty  of 
foreign  territory  by  voluntary  and  free  gift,  the  grantee  should 
scrupulously  observe  the  title  of  the  grantor.  Title  should 
be  free  from  all  taint  or  suspicion;  there  should  be  no  cloud 
upon  the  same ,  and  above  all,  there  should  be  no  evidence  at 
hand  showing  that  the  nation  which  is  (now)  asked  to  take 
the  cession,  was,  through  its  diplomatic  or  other  agents,  in 


9 


collusion  to  lodge  in  the  “  Provisional  Government  ”  (now  the 
oligarchy)  by  duplicity,  trick,  deception  and  force,  the  title 
to  the  thing  which  it  is  now  proposed  to  cede  !  Do  the  United 
States  occupy  that  position  in  the  case  of  the  Hawaiian  Is¬ 
lands?  Not  upon  the  record.  In  fact  the  very  ground,  and 
the  only  ground  upon  which  President  Cleveland  was  propos¬ 
ing  to  restore  the  Queen,  impeached  the  title  now  held  by  the 
Hawaiian  authorities,  and  that  renders  it  impossible  for  the 
United  States  to  honorably  accept  the  possession,  and  sover¬ 
eignty  of  these  islands  —from  the  oligarchy  !  The  assent  of  the 
Queen,  but  more  especially  that  of  the  people ,  is  an  important 
requisite  to  make  us  a  good  title,  and  none  other  should  be 
accepted ,  provided  it  is  either  prudent  or  necessary  to  depart 
from  our  traditional  policy  and  annex  these  islands  at  all. 

Of  course  the  facts  become  very  important.  The  plan  of 
the  conspirators  seems  to  have  been  not  to  appear  before  the 
Special  Commissioner  sent  to  Honolulu,  the  idea  being  that 
the  facts  would  thus  either  be  suppressed  or  disputable.  At 
the  outset  it  is  important  to  note  that  Minister  Stevens,  as 
early  as  March,  1892,  was  evidently  made  aware  that  a  con¬ 
spiracy  was  hatching  to  seize  the  Hawaiian  Government." 
This  is  proven  by  his  cautious  letter  of  inquiry  from  Hono¬ 
lulu  to  our  Secretary  of  State.  He  therein  unfolds  the  prob¬ 
able  plan  which  was  likely  to  be  adopted  by  the  conspirators 
and  asks  for  instructions  — 

“  If  the  government  here  should  be  surprised  and  overturned 
“  by  orderly  and  peaceful  movement,  largely  of  native  Hawaii- 
“  ans  and  a  Provisional  or  republican  (sic)  government  organ¬ 
ized  and  proclaimed,  would  the  United  States  Minister  and 
“naval  commander  here  be  justified  in  responding  affirma- 
“  tively  to  the  call  of  the  members  of  the  removed  government 
“ to  restore  them  to  power ,  or  replace  them  in  possession  of  the 
“  government  buildings  ?  Or  should  the  United  States  Min- 
“  ister  and  naval  commander  confine  themselves  exclusively 
“to  the  preservation  of  American  property,  the  protection  of 
“American  citizens  and  the  prevention  of  anarchy?” 

No  unprejudiced  man  can  rise  from  an  intelligent  perusal 
of  that  letter  without  feeling  convinced  that  this  “  annexa¬ 
tion  ”  plot  was  incubating  nearly  a  year  btfore  it  culminated , 
and  that  Stevens  was  fully  advised  of  its  delicate  “diplo¬ 
matic  ”  details. 

The  Executive  of  the  United  States  has  well  said — 

“  Minister  Stevens  consulted  freely  with  the  leaders  of  the 
“  revolutionary  movement  from  the  evening  of  January  14, 
“  1893.  They  disclosed  to  him  all  their  plans  !  They  feared 
“  arrest  and  punishment.  He  promised  them  protection  /  They 
“  needed  the  U.  S.  troops  on  shore  to  overawe  the  Queen' s  sup- 


IO 


“  porters  and  her  government  !  These  he  agreed  to  a7id  did 
“  furnish!  *  *  *  The  American  Minister  and  the  revolutionary 

leaders  had  determined  on  annexation  to  the  United  States, 
~“  and  had  agreed  on  the  part  each  was  to  act  to  the  very  end.” 
'{See  same  Dec.,  pp.  594,  453,  455.) 

And  the  record  further  proves  that  had  the  Queen  not  been 
overawed  by  the  use  made  of  our  flag  and  our  marines  (p. 
738-9),  she  having  possession  of  the  station-house,  barracks 
and  palace  (p.  943)  with  ample  forces,  she  would  have  throt¬ 
tled  the  conspirators  (p.  1032,  1036,  1039),  who  in  the  garb  of 
“  peaceable  ”  citizens  (p.  214)  entitled  to  assemble,  had  really 
met  to  conspire  and  overthrow  the  government  with  the  knowl¬ 
edge,  if  not  connivance  of  our  Minister ,  who  was  to  and  did  ask 
for  the  landing  of  our  marines,  without  the  consent  of  the 
Queen.  In  that  way,  and  in  that  way  only ,  the  oligarchy 
“peaceably”  sneaked  into  position.  Its  members  did  not 
miss  a  meal — because  it  was  the  use  of  the  power  of  the  United 
States  and  not  their  own,  which  induced  the  Queen  to  surren¬ 
der.  To  avoid  bloodshed  with  our  troops ,  she  submitted  the 
whole  matter  to  the  President.  In  this  she  was  following  pre¬ 
cedents  set  by  her  predecessors,  and  that  has  some  force.  For 
instance,  on  the  25th  of  February,  1843,  under  pressure  of 
British  naval  forces,  the  Hawaiian  king  ceded  the  islands  to 
Lord  George  Paulet,  subject  to  the  decision  of  the  British 
Government  “after  full  information”  given  of  the  facts. 
The  British  restored  the  islands  to  the  king  and  it  created  a 
deep  impression  on  the  minds  of  the  Hawaiians.  (See  same 
Doc.,  pp.  595-51-59.)  Confronted  as  the  Queen  supposed  she 
was  by  the  forces  and  flag  of  the  United  States  (pp.  208-218), 
Judge  Wideman  recalled  this  action  of  the  English  and  Ha¬ 
waiian  protests  to  the  Queen  to  satisfy  her  that  the  “  Provi¬ 
sional  Government”  of  1893 — because  brought  to  success 
through  the  forces  and  flag  of  the  United  States,  would  be 
repudiated  by  the  United  States  when  all  the  facts  were  laid 
before  the  President  (p.  595).  Mr.  Damon  made  like  repre¬ 
sentations.  Hence  her  surrender,  protest  and  appeal  to  our 
President  (pp.  218-219). 

In  1849,  when  the  French  admiral  landed  his  forces  in 
Honolulu  to  secure  reparation  for  some  alleged  infraction  of 
international  law,  the  Hawaiian  king  offered  no  opposition. 
He  withdrew  when  the  French  Government  had  ascertained 
the  facts.  (See  same  Doc.,  pp.  72-75.) 

In  the  light  of  these  precedents  how  can  the  United  States 
honorably  do  less  than  the  English  and  French  did.  Least  of 
all  can  we  accept  the  fruits  of  this  conspiracy  from  the  con¬ 
spirators. 

When  the  facts  were  all  laid  before  our  Executive  he  found 


ample  reasons  to  attempt  to  save  our  flag  from  dishonor  by 
withdrawing  the  treaty  and  asking  the  “Provisional  Govern¬ 
ment”  to  give  up  their  plunder.  (See  same  Doc.,  pp.  1190- 
1191.)  But  he  proceeded,  only  as  far  as  his  constitutional 
power  permitted,  to  rectify  a  wrong  (p.  1283).  He  never 
contemplated  a  restoration  of  the  Queen  by  force  (p.  1299). 

And  he  even  attached  humane  conditions  to  whatever  he 
might  try  to  do,  to  set  the  United  States  right  before  the  civ¬ 
ilized  world,  to  which  conditions  the  Queen  reluctantly — be¬ 
cause  of  her  oath  of  office,  but  finally  consented  (pp.  1242, 
1263,  1267,  1269). 

The  “  Provisional  Government,”  so-called,  refused  to  re¬ 
turn  to  the  Queen  her  lawful  authority  (pp.  1275,  1282). 

The  President  could  not  constitutionally  proceed  farther, 
but  he  succeeded  in  clearly  defining  his  idea  of  what  the 
national  honor  of  a  great  nation  required,  and  thus  the  matter 
drifted  into  Congress.  The  American  people  have  never  un¬ 
derstood  this  matter.  They  have  neither  understood  the  facts, 
the  issue  nor  what  was  at  stake.  As  the  President  well  and 
truly  said — “The  subversion  of  the  Hawaiian  government 
by  an — 

“  abuse  of  the  authority  of  the  United  States  was  m plain  vio- 
“  lalion  of  international  law ,  and  required  the  President  to  disavow 
“  and  condemn  the  act  of  our  off  ending  officials ,  and  within  the  lim- 
“  its  of  his  constitutional  power ,  to  endeavor  to  restore  the  lawful 
“authority.”  (See  same  Doc.,  p.  12 83.) 

As  it  stands  to-day  the  American  people  are  deceived  /  They 
have  been  skillfully  played  upon  as  one  would  play  upon  a 
flute  !  They  are  the  innocent  victims  of  a  sel fish  lot  of  foreign 
sugar  planters  and  their  diplomatic  agents,  representatives 
and  foreign  newspapers.  And  this  is  so  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  our  people  hate  deception  and  duplicity ;  and  notwith¬ 
standing  the  fact  that  if  there  is  anything  the  average  Amer¬ 
ican  citizen  loves  it  is  fair  play. 

Since  January  17,  1893,  the  so-called  “Provisional  Gov¬ 
ernment”  of  Hawaii  set  up  by  the  conspirators,  has  given 
way  to  a  self-constituted  oligarchy  which  in  no  wise  repre¬ 
sents  the  people,  nor  was  it  set  up  with  their  consent.  To 
that,  protest  was  promptly  entered  (p.  1316).  Under  these 
circumstances  the  United  States  are  asked  to  regard  Hawaii 
as  a  “republic”  and  to  treat  with  it  on  “equal  terms”! 
It  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  propositions  recorded  in  the 
history  of  international  law.  The  assurance  which  it  con¬ 
tains  is  only  equaled  by  the  cowardice  that  shielded  itself  be¬ 
hind  our  flag  and  our  marines  to  set  up  the  “  Provisional 
Government.” 

-  The  facts  become  vitally  important  the  moment  the  oligarchy 


12 


tenders  the  Islands  to  the  United  States !  The  oligarchy  may 
have  “diplomatically”  overcome  the  constitutional  govern¬ 
ment  of  Hawaii,  and  be  in  a  position  to  hold  its  spoils  as 
against  our  Executive,  but  to  attempt  to  make  the  United 
States  a  receiver  of  stolen  goods — obtained  through  the  inter¬ 
cession  of  our  agents ,  is  asking  a  little  too  much  /  That  we  may 
not  honorably  accept  ! 

Under  a  former  Administration  the  attempt  was  made  to 
thrust  politics  into  this  “  annexation”  scheme.  There  was 
no  good  ground  for  this.  In  fact  there  was  ample  precedent 
for  the  sending  Mr.  Blount  to  Hawaii  as  a  special  envoy  to 
develop  the  facts,  just  as  such  a  commissioner  was  sent  to  San 
Domingo  by  General  Grant,  and  still  later  he  sent  a  commis¬ 
sion  there  which  made  a  report. 

Much  ado  was  also  made  over  the  “flag”  incident  by 
persons  who  were  poorly  advised  or  dishonestly  inclined.  The 
methods  adopted  all  through  this  Hawaiian  business  have 
smacked  of  the  crafty  conspirator  intent  upon  deception  and 
inflaming  the  minds  of  the  American  people.  What  are  the 
facts  about  our  flag  ? 

Minister  Stevens  caused  our  flag  to  be  hoisted  over  the  Ha¬ 
waiian  government  buildings,  after  the  “  Provisional  Govern¬ 
ment  ”  had  been  set  up  !  (See  same  Doc.,  p.  404.) 

As  well  might  our  Minister  in  London  set  up  our  flag 
over  the  Parliament  House. 

For  the  reason  that  it  had  no  right  there,  Secretary  Foster 
disavowed  the  act  (Feburary  14,  1893),  and  it  had  to  come 
down.  As  the  Secretary  well  said,  the  hoisting  of  our  flag 
over  a  foreign  government  building  was  placing  the  symbol 
of  the  power  of  the  United  States  over  the  Hawaiian  author¬ 
ity,  and  the  act  could  not  be  sustained.  (See  same  Doc.,  240, 
242,  472  and  474.) 

The  flag,  therefore,  was,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  or¬ 
dered  “  hauled  down  ”  by  aRepublican  Administration  in  Feb¬ 
ruary,  and  that  order  was  simply  executed  by  a  Democratic 
Administration  April  1.  The  American  people  have  never 
understood  this. 

The  sham  excuse  of  the  conspirators  to  excuse  their  action 
in  January,  1893,  was  that  the  Queen  proposed  to  unlawfully 
promulgate  a  new  Constitution  (pp.  213,  227). 

There  are  complete  and  satisfactory  answers  to  this  pretext. 
First.  Even  if  the  Queen  had  conceived  that  idea,  it  was 
only  because  the  people  were  demanding  such  action  (pp.  581, 
848,  907,  909)  in  order  to  get  a  return  of  the  suffrage  (p.  581) 
and  the  power  extorted  from  them  under  the  Constitution  of 
1887  which  the  sugar  oligarchy  had  forced  upon  the  King 
(pp.  576,  1019).  Second.  The  Queen  concluded  not  to  pro- 


!3 


mulgate  a  new  Constitution  and  timely  informed  the  conspi¬ 
rators  of  the  fact  (p.  228,582).  Third.  Her  original  inten¬ 
tion  was  a  liberalizing  one  and  in  marked  contrast  with  the 
disfranchising  test  oath  clause  (100)  in  the  so-called  Consti¬ 
tution  of  the  oligarchy  (p.  1339). 

These  statement  are  so  closely  interwoven  with  the  oli¬ 
garchy  that  they  seem  necessary  to  an  intelligent  idea  of 
the  subject,  but  the  pivotal  point  is  that  a  title  impeached  by 
our  own  Executive  act  in  1893-4,  cannot  be  said  to  be  cleared 
by  the  mere  force  of  votes  in  Congress,  exploiting  a  new 
political  policy  largely  based  upon  sentiment  at  home 
and  the  cupidity  of  interested  sugar  planters  abroad.  That 
the  title  now  held  by  the  Hawaiian  oligarchy  is  tainted — in  so 
far  as  that  the  United  States  may  not  honorably  accept  it  from 
the  oligarchy,  was  proven,  after  full  investigation,  in  the  re¬ 
port  made  to  the  Executive  by  our  own  special  Commissioner 
sent  to  the  Islands  to  develop  the  facts.  That  report  has  ample 
evidence  to  support  it.  In  a  suit  between  the  United  States, 
the  oligarchy,  and  the  Queen  or  Hawaiian  people,  a  court 
of  equity  would  set  aside  a  deed  of  these  Islands  made  to  the 
United  States  by  the  oligarchy,  as  collusively  obtained  by  and 
through  the  connivance  of  our  own  agents  / 

That  is  the  test  of  our  moral  right  to  accept  the  cession. 
Of  course  we  have  the  power  to  take  the  deed — even  from  an 
oligarchy,  but  we  would  be  forever  concluded  thereby  to 
criticise  similar  acts  or  like  seizures  by  other  nations  which 
the  American  people  have  not  been  slow  to  condemn. 

That  our  diplomatic  and  other  agencies  did  interfere  in 
Hawaii  is  fully  established  by  the  following  from  the  message 
of  our  own  Executive,  December  18,  1S93 — 

“  The  lawful  government  of  Hawaii  was  overthrown,  by  a 
“  process,  every  step  of  which,  it  may  safely  be  asserted,  is 
“  directly  traceable  to  and  dependent  for  its  success  upon 
“  the  agency  of  the  United  States  through  its  diplomatic  and 
“  naval  representatives.” 

And  much  more  to  the  same  effect.  As  against  those  in 
Hawaii  who  are  and  ever  have  been  protesting  against  spolia¬ 
tion,  the  United  States  cannot  gainsay  the  admission  of  its  own 
Executive.  It  is  not  impeachable.  It  stands  forth  on  the 
record  made  up  by  the  United  States  itself.  It  will  be  seen 
at  once,  that  this  is  not  a  question  of  restoring  the  monarchy — 
the  present  political  status  quo  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands  may 
well  remain ,  but  when  the  United  States  is  asked  to  accept  a  title , 
tainted  because  of  the  collusive  acts  of  its  own  agents ,  a  very 
different  question  arises!  Nor  need  we  depend  alone  on  the 
message  of  the  Executive  of  December,  1893,  to  show  why. 
Secretary  Foster’s  letter  of  January  28,  1893,  replying  to  that 


i4 


of  Minister  Stevens  informing  the  Secretary  of  the  latter’s 
hasty  recognition  of  the  “Provisional  Government,”  clearly 
indicates  what  he  thought  was  necessary.  He  says — 

“Your  course  in  recognizing  an  unopposed  de  facto  govern- 
“  ment,  appears  to  have  been  discreet  and  in  accordance  with 
“  the  facts  !  The  rule  of  this  government  has  uniformly  been 
“  to  recognize  and  enter  into  relations  with  any  actual  gov- 
“  ernment  in  full  possession  of  effective  power  with  the  assent 
‘ 1  of  the  people  /  ” 

Those  conditions  did  not  exist  in  January,  1893  !  The  only 
reason  the  conspirators  were  “  unopposed  ”  was  that  the 
Queen  was  artfully  and  deceptively  led  to  suppose  that  she 
was  menaced  by  the  authority  of  the  United  States  and  she  sur¬ 
rendered — not  to  the  Provisional  Government,  but  to  our  flag 
and  our  forces,  until  the  matter  could  be  investigated.  Nor 
was  the  “  Provisional  ”  cabal  in  Hawaii  an  “  actual  ”  govern¬ 
ment  having  “effective”  power  with  “the  assent  of  the  peo¬ 
ple.”  There  has  never  been  any  such  a  pretense  !  The  moral 
question  remains  just  where  it  was  placed  four  years  ago  by  the 
oligarchy  itself .  Time  cannot  eradicate  it. 

The  claim  of  the  oligarchy  is  thus  stated  by  Mr.  Lorrin 
Thurston — 

“The  fact  that  the  United  States  Minister — with  or  with- 
“  out  the  authority  of  his  government,  may  have  trespassed 
“  upon  the  international  rights  of  Hawaii  (/.  e.  the  Queen) 
“  does  not  thereby  confer  jurisdiction  upon  the  government 
“  of  the  United  States  to  now  again  and  deliberately  trespass 
“  upon  such  rights,”  i.  <?.,  upon  the  rights  of  the  oligarchy,  a 
de  facto  or  de  jure  government  !  (See  House  Ex.  Doc.  1,  Part 
1,  p.  440,  53d,  3d.) 

No  need  to  discuss  that  question.  The  point  is,  that  enough 
is  stated  and  conceded  to  show  that  the  title,  possession  and 
sovereignty  thus  seized,  obtained  and  held  without  the  consent 
of  the  people  and  against  the  wish  of  their  lawful  sovereign, 
was  obtained  through  the  complicity  and  connivance  of  the  diplo¬ 
matic  agent  and  forces  of  the  United  States'  It  was  only  be¬ 
cause  of  that  intervention  that  the  plot  was  successful  ;  else 
there  were  no  pretense  now  of  power  to  transfer  the  Hawaiian 
Islands  by  the  oligarchy.  In  plain  words  Mr.  Thurston’s 
language  comes  to  this,  that  even  if  Stevens  did  cause  our  flag 
and  our  marines  to  be  deceptively  used  to  establish  a  revolu¬ 
tionary  government  and  overthrow  a  lawful  ruler,  yet  being 
in  possession,  the  oligarchy  insists  that  it  cannot  be  ousted 
nor  the  Queen  restored  by  the  United  States.  Morality  and 
justice  are  thrown  to  the  winds.  It  is  tantamount  to  saying 
that  the  “job”  was  well  planned  and  conceived  to  dupe  and 
deceive,  and  even  if  its  success  depended  on  the  dishonorable 


I5 


i  use  made  of  the  American  flag  and  marines,  the  oligarchy 

has  the  advantage  of  possession  and  proposes  to  keep  it.  In 
other  words  the  oligarchy  says  to  us,  our  conspiracy  was  a 
t  diplomatic  success — in  so  far  as  that  the  United  States  may 

not  now  interfere  to  oust  us.  It  argues  that  the  President  of 
the  United  States  may  not  use  force  or  make  war  upon  it  ; 
Congress  only  has  that  power  !  That  is  the  reason  this  oli- 

*  garchy  has  remained  in  power. 

Now  concede  all  that  is  thus  said,  and  it  does  not  go  far 
enough.  If  those  who  stand  upon  this  slippery  ground  were 
asking  nothing  more  than  to  be  “let  alone,”  the  United 
States  might  rest  upon  its  recognition  of  the  status  quo,  but 
the  trouble  is — and  herein  is  the  inherent  or  structural  weak¬ 
ness  of  this  11  annexation"  scheme;  the  oligarchy  now  asks 
the  United  States  to  accept  from  it  a  title  thus  obtained! 
A  title — the  possession  of  which  could  not  have  been 
seized  or  possessed  save  by  the  misuse  made  of  our  flag  and 
our  forces!  That  title  the  United  States  cannot  honorably 
accept !  That  is  the  real  issue  as  annexation  is  now  presented  ! 
Mr.  Thurston  overlooks  it.  When  a  government  in  Hawaii 
comes  to  the  United  States  with  clean  hands  and  the  assent  of 
the  people ,  the  United  States  will  be  in  a  position  to  listen, 

.  but  not  until  that  time.  Jackson — in  the  case  of  Texas,  ad¬ 
verted  to  the  morality  involved  in  that  proposed  cession, 
in  his  message  of  December  21,  1836 — 

“  The  title  of  Texas  to  the  territory  she  claims  is  identified 
“  with  her  independence  ;  she  asks  us  to  acknowledge  that 
“  title  to  the  territory  with  an  avowed  design  to  treat  imme¬ 
diately  for  its  transfer  to  the  United  States.  It  becomes  us 
“  to  beware  of  a  too  early  movement,  as  it  might  subject  us, 
li  however  unjustly ,  to  the  imputation  of  seeking  to  establish  the 
“  claim  of  our  neighbors  to  territory,  with  a  view  to  its  subsequent 
“  acquisition  by  ourselves .” 

In  that  case  neither  the  United  States  nor  its  diplomatic  or 
other  agents  had,  at  any  time  or  in  any  way,  interfered  with 
or  connived  at  the  independence  of  Texas,  and  yet  we  see 
how  scrupulously  observant  our  Executive  then  was  of  the 
morality  of  a  transaction  involving  the  independence  of  a 
country,  which  was  something  very  much  less  than  a  cession 
>  of  territory  !  The  moral  sense  of  Presidents  may  have  since 

become  blunted,  but  that  of  a  great  nation  remains  acute.  Aside 
from  the  collusion  of  our  Minister  to  bring  about  the  success 
of  the  “  Provisional  Government  ”  in  Hawaii  by  the  decept- 

•  ive  use  of  our  flag  and  marines  and  the  premature  recog¬ 
nition  of  the  same,  we  have — in  the  proclamation  issued  by  it, 
the  express  acknowledgment  that  at  its  ve?y  inception,  it  was — 
“  established  ”  (2)  to  exist  until  terms  of  Union  with  the 


i6 


United  States  of  America  have  been  negotiated  and  agreed  upon." 
(See  House  Ex.  Doc.  i,  Part  i,  p.  210,  53d,  3d  ) 

Does  any  person  suppose  for  a  single  moment  that  had  our 
diplomatic  and  other  agencies  interfered — as  they  did  in 
Hawaii,  to  overthrow  Mexican  authority  in  Texas,  and  had 
set  up  the  Texas  government  through  our  intercession ,  that 
Jackson  would  have  listened  for  a  second  to  an  acceptance 
of  territory  thus  obtained !  With  no  such  element  existing, 
the  United  States  declined  to  accept  the  cession  of  Texas 
until  ei^ht years  after  Jackson  wrote,  and  then  it  came  to  us 
with  the  assent  of  the  people  through  convention,  and  not  from 
an  oligarchy  that  has  established  its  right  in  Hawaii  solely 
through  the  collusion  and  connivance  of  our  Minister  and 
the  use  made  of  our  flag  and  our  naval  forces  ! 

An  American  Congress  should  hesitate  a  long  time  before 
accepting  Hawaiian  title  as  now  tendered!  The  national 
honor  and  good  morals  are  involved  in  this  “  annexation  ” 
scheme  !  It  is  the  first  question  to  which  Congress  should 
address  itself.  All  other  considerations,  if  important,  are 
subsidiary.  Two  things  stand  self-confessed  and  unimpeach¬ 
able — 

1.  The  unlawful  interference  of  our  Minister  and  our  ma¬ 
rines  that  made  a  conspiracy  successful  ; 

2.  The  treaty  proposes  that  the  United  States  accept  the 

fruits  of  that  conspiracy. 

The  status-quo  is  in  no  way  involved  so  long  as  Congress 
shall  refuse  interference  to  restore  the  old  order  of  things. 
The  rehabilitation  of  the  monarchy  is  not  in  issue.  The  pres¬ 
ent  oligarchy — according  to  Secretary  Sherman,  represents  a 
‘‘firmly  established”  state.  The  rejection  of  “  annexation  ” 
will  not  sacrifice  the  independence  of  the  islands  to  which  policy 
the  UnitedStates  has  long  been  committed,  and  hence  all  dan¬ 
ger  of  foreign  domination  can  be  dismissed.  It  is  a  bogie  man 
that  alarms  no  one.  Nor  should  we,  through  annexation — 
without  the  consent  of  the  people,  rob  them  of  the  right  to 
govern  themselves. 

There  can  be  no  sort  of  doubt,  that  the  United  States,  it- 
.self  a  republic,  based  upon  the  consent  of  the  people ,  should  in¬ 
sist  that  any  cession  of  Hawaiian  territory  should  have  the 
assent  of  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the  islands,  and  not  merely 
of  the  few  who,  from  our  remission  of  duty  on  their  sugar, 
have  been  able  to  lay  by  dollars  and  cents  in  Honolulu  !  In 
his  letter  to  Mr.  Culver  of  November  19,  1862,  Secretary 
Seward  said — “A  revolutionary  government  is  not  to  be  rec- 
“  ognized  until  it  is  established  by  the  great  body  of  the  popu- 
“  lation  of  ihe  state  it  claims  to  govern.”  (Wharton,  Vol.  1, 

•  542 ) 


7 


That  is  sound  republican  doctrine ,  and  it  seems  hardly  neces¬ 
sary  to  add  anything  to  support  it.  The  consent  of  the  people 
is  the  cornerstone  of  our  own  republic  !  A  mere  handful  of 
revolutionists  or  conspirators — aided  by  deception,  trick  and 
the  moral,  yea  actual  force  of  the  United  States,  ousted  a 
lawful  ruler  and,  seizing  possession,  they  now  offer  to  cede 
title  to  the  territory  thus  obtained  to  the  very  nation  whose  diplo¬ 
matic  agents  connived  at  the  usurpation,  and  obtained  the  posses¬ 
sion  for  the  grantor  against  the  consent  of  the  people  !  The 
nation  thus  situated — to  whom  the  tender  is  now  made,  cannot 
honorably  accept  such  a  title  ! 

It  is  undoubtedly  true,  as  stated  by  the  President,  that,  as 
a  mere  naked  proposition,  the  proposed  cession  of  Hawaii, 
is  not  a  “new  scheme, ”  but  it  is  equally  true  that  there  are 
certain  matters  surrounding  “annexation”  as  now  presented, 
that  find  no  warrant  in  national  morals.  The  effort  made  in 
the  papers  accompanying  the  treaty  to  the  Senate,  to  dress  it 
up  as  a  new  proposition  and  excuse  the  defeat  of  the  prior 
treaty,  evinces  a  consciousness  that  the  present  one  needs  sup¬ 
port.  The  indirect  attempt  to  show  wherein  that  treaty  was 
weak,  unconsciously  discloses  the  frailty  of  the  pending  one. 

These  things  are  not  only  manifest  but  painful.  The  treaty  ^ 
of  1893-4  was  withdrawn,  no  so  much  for  the  reason  so  diplo¬ 
matically  adverted  to  by  Secretary  Sherman — because  both 
treaties  came  from  the  same  Hawaiian  parties,  substantially, 
but  for  the  reason  that  a  full  investigation  revealed  the  fact 
that — “the  lawful  government  of  Hawaii  was  overthrown  by 
“  a  process,  every  step  of  which  was  directly  traceable  to  and 
“  dependent  for  its  success  upon  the  agency  of  the  United  States 
“  acting  through  its  diplomatic  and  naval  representatives.” 
(House  Ex.  Doc.  1,  Part  1,  53d,  3d,  p.  219,  455,  738,  768.)  ~? 

That  was  the  allegation  of  our  own  Executive ,  and  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  Hawaii  who  are  objecting  to  annexation  and  have  pro¬ 
tests  on  file,  have  a  right  to  insist  that  the  allegation  is  true. 

That  situation  remains  unchanged.  Thus  an  issue  was  formed 
and  it  remained  untried  and  undisposed  of  at  the  time  the 
pending  treaty  came  into  the  Senate.  As  between  Congress 
and  the  Hawaiian  people  objecting  to  “annexation,”  Con¬ 
gress  may  not  impeach  our  own  Executive !  It  is  true  that  an 
incoming  Executive  has  the  political  power  to  ignore  so  grave 
an  executive  statement,  but  an  exercise  of  that  power  will 
not — in  the  eyes  of  the  civilized  world  and  the  American  peo¬ 
ple,  wipe  out  the  fact  that  a  ratification  of  this  treaty  in 
which  the  oligarchy  is  the  grantor,  will  violate  national  honor 
and  morality,  leaving  the  grave  accusation  of  our  own  Execu¬ 
tive  on  record,  undisturbed,  to  forever  condemn  the  act. 

There  is  not  only  no  precedent  in  our  country  for  the  con- 


i8 


templated  cession,  but  annexation  is  objectionable  for  another 
reason.  The  history  of  Hawaii  is  quite  replete  with  evi¬ 
dences  of  a  higher  sense  of  honor,  honesty  and  fair  play  than 
is  here  exhibited.  For  instance,  when  the  Sandwich  Islands 
were  ceded  to  Great  Britain,  conditionally,  in  1843,  the  Eng¬ 
lish  were  prompt  in  disavowing  the  act  of  their  Admiral .  (See 
House  Ex.  Doc.  1,  Part  1,  p.  51-59,  53d  Cong.,  3d.) 

A  few  years  after,  when  the  islands  were  ceded  to  the 
United  States,  as  against  France,  which  was  complaining  of 
treaty  infractions,  our  Secretary  of  State,  Daniel  Webster, 
ordered  the  deed  returned  to  the  Hawaiians.  (See  same  Doc., 
p.  91-102.) 

Still  later,  under  the  administration  of  Mr.  Pierce,  when 
the  islands  were  about  to  be  conditionally  ceded  to  the 
United  States  because  of  internal  commotions  therein,  Sec¬ 
retary  Marcy  was  very  careful  to  regard  Gregg’s  proposition 
as  a  measure — “  proposed  by  the  people,"  in  which  the  rulers 
were  disposed  to  concur.  (See  same  Doc.,  p.  122.) 

And  later  still,  the  consent  of  the  people  was  evidently  re¬ 
garded  as  requisite  by  Secretary  Seward.  (See  same  Doc.,  p. 
M3) 

It  is  a  stock  argument  to  talk  about  “  American  capital  ”  in 
Hawaii,  but  it  went  there  voluntarily — escaping  taxation  at 
home;  it  ventured  upon  foreign  soil  in  search  of  sugar  profits 
and  has  gathered  volume.  It  took  all  the  risks  incidental  to 
the  form  of  government  and  its  uncertain  tenure,  and  it  has 
no  other  claim  upon  us  than  other  similar  enterprises  have, 
entered  upon  by  our  citizens  in  other  foreign  countries,  which 
must  always  be  undertaken  at  their  own  risk  and  subject  to 
the  existing  laws  of  those  nations — including  internal  commo¬ 
tions.  (See  1  Wharton,  p.  545-6.) 

It  is  likewise  true  that  this  so-called  American  capital  came 
from  sugar  raised  on  Hawaiian  soil,  and  hence  is  really  “  Ha¬ 
waiian  capital.”  Millions  have  been  borrowed  also  of  the 
English  and  Germans.  (See  House  Ex.  Doc.  1,  Part  1,  53d, 
3d,  p.  919-921.) 

There  is  a  great  deal  of  American  capital  in  Cuba,  but  no 
one  would  place  a  proposition  to  “annex”  Cuba  on  that 
ground.  Are  we  to  throw  special  favor  around  capital  that 
deserts  our  shores  and  evades  home  taxation  ?  Are  we  to  hold 
“  the  sack  ”  for  capital  employed  abroad ? 

Secretary  Webster  answered  this  very  old  and  musty  argu¬ 
ment  in  1851,  when  our  Commissioner  Severance,  at  Hono¬ 
lulu  was  plying  him  with  it.  He  said — 

“You  inform  me  that  many  American  people  have  gone  to 
“  settle  in  the  islands  ;  if  so,  they  have  ceased  to  be  American 
“ citizens .  The  government  of  the  United  States  must,  of 


i9 


“  course,  feel  an  interest  in  them  not  extended  to  foreigners, 
“but  by  the  law  of  nations  they  have  no  further  right  to  de- 
“  mand  the  protection  of  this  Government.”  (See  same  Doc., 
p.  90-102.) 

The  status  of  persons  who  go  abroad  from  the  United  States 
to  make  money ;  who  become  residents  in  foreign  lands,  pay 
taxes  there  and  not  here ,  who  in  no  way  contribute  to  the  main¬ 
tenance,  support  or  defense  of  this  government,  who  exercise 
the  suffrage  abroad  and  not  here,  is  well  defined.  They  can¬ 
not  claim  “diplomatic”  intervention  in  their  behalf.  As 
Secretary  Webster  well  said,  they  have  ceased  to  be  American 
citizens.  (Wharton’s  Digest,  Sec.  176.) 

They  have  voluntarily  placed  themselves  within  the  power 
and  jurisdiction  of  Hawaii ;  have  subjected  themselves  and 
their  property  to  its  laws. 

The  crafty  scheme  of  “  denization  ”  in  Hawaii  only  con¬ 
cerns  or  affects  their  status  in  Hawaii ,  not  here.  There  is  no* 
mode  of  express  renunciation  of  citizenship ;  a  change  of 
domicile,  long  continued,  with  family  and  effects  is  sufficient 
manifestation  of  intent ,  however. 

As  an  intelligent  and  unprejudiced  gentleman,  who  care¬ 
fully  examined  this  whole  Hawaiian  business,  well  observed — 

“Certain  men,  without  throwing  off  their  allegiance  to  the 
“United  States,  have  secured  ‘denizen’  rights  in  Hawaii, 
“gobbled  up  the  lands  of  the  natives ,  deprived  them  of  suffrage , 

“  seized  their  government  and  propose  now  to  sell  it." 

We  have  adverted  to  the  ignominious  failure  of  the  St.  Do¬ 
mingo  annexation  scheme  in  1871.  We  also  recall  the  prop¬ 
osition  to  annex  St.  Thomas  and  St.  John’s  Islands  in  1868; 
and  yet  these  separate  “schemes,”  with  the  powerful  support 
of  such  men  as  General  Grant  and  of  Secretary  Seward,  failed. 

It  is  not  the  American  policy  to  invite  or  attach  people  of  all  races 
from  the  tropics  and  incorporate  them  in  this  great  Ameri — - 
can  system  !  We  recall  the  reasons  advanced  by  General  Gar¬ 
field  in  his  speech  objecting  to  Hawaiian  annexation  !  They 
are  unanswerable.  In  the  case  of  Samoa,  we  have  limited 
ourselves  to  the  purchase  of  a  naval  or  coal  station,  with  a 
sort  of  tripartite  protectorate  to  which  the  United  States,  Ger¬ 
many  and  Great  Britain  are  parties. 

Lorrin  Thurston,  and  those  who  argue  with  him,  assume  that 
the  native  Hawaiians  have  no  concern  in  what  shall  be  done  ; 
no  voice  that  should  be  listened  to  ;  no  rights  that  the  white  man 
is  bound  to  respect !  For  four  long  years  those  who  had  always 
ruled  and  who — being  in  the  majority,  had  and  have  the 
right  to  govern  Hawaii,  have  patiently  awaited  from  our  Con¬ 
gress  some  reply  to  their  petition  for  the  redress  of  a  griev¬ 
ance.  Our  Executive  was  powerless,  under  the  constitution, 


20 


to  place  the  Queen  back  even  if  there  had  been  no  sentimental 
opposition  among  the  American  people  to  the  rehabilitation 
of  the  constitutional  monarchy  which  the  people  of  Hawaii 
had  chosen  as  their  form  of  government ;  a  government  which 
neither  the  United  States  nor  any  other  nation  had  the  right 
to  overthrow,  directly  nor  indirectly,  through  a  conspiracy  in 
which  our  diplomatic  and  naval  agencies  were  too  prominent, 
and  without  whom  it  could  not  have  succeeded.  Patiently, 
and  perhaps  hopefully,  the  Hawaiian  people  have  awaited 
from  Congress  an  answer  to  their  appeals  lodged  with  our 
Executives.  They  have  thus  exhibited  the  highest  evidence 
of  civilization.  They  have  declined  to  in  any  way  recognize 
the  oligarchy  set  up  by  the  conspirators  and  especially  by 
their  neglecting  and  refusing  to  vote,  because  it  was  the  evi¬ 
dent  design  of  those  who  employed  the  test  oath  to  invite 
them  to  exercise  the  suffrage  and  then  to  use  it  as  an  argument 
that  they  had  thereby  given  recognition  to  the  oligarchy!  This 
ruse  has  not  been  successful.  The  Hawaiian  people  have  no 
fear  of  Japanese  or  other  foreign  domination;  on  the  other 
hand  the  oligarchy  sees  ghosts  on  every  side;  every  bush  in 
Hawaii  conceals  an  imaginary  foe  ;  fancied  danger  springs 
up  on  every  side  as  the  oligarchy  contemplates  what  it  has 
done,  but  nothing  intimidates  it  more  than  the  fear  of  justice 
— long  delayed.  Before  that  phantom  flit  sugar  profits  and 
political  elevation  into  obscurity,  while  the  “annexation” 
wail  is  wafted  on  every  breeze  from  Honolulu  to  Washington. 
One  would  think  the  fate  of  this  nation  hung  upon  the 
“  annexation  ”  of  Hawaii.  Peaceful  Hawaiians  are  now — 
even  while  awaiting  an  answer  at  the  hands  of  a  great  nation, 
told  that  they  have  slept  upon  their  rights.  Because  they 
have  refused  to  forcibly  assert  themselves  ;  because  they  have 
pursued  that  Christian  policy  of  forbearance  embodied  in  the 
“English  arbitration”  scheme,  and  because  they  have 
neglected  to  precipitate  a  civil  war  upon  Hawaii,  they  are 
told  by  Secretary  Sherman  that  in  view  of  all  these  things  and 
because  they  have  refused  to  recognize  the  oligarchy  by  vot¬ 
ing,  therefore  there  is  a  “  republic  ”  in  Hawaii  with  which  we 
may  treat  on  equal  terms — for  the  transfer  of  the  islands  ! 
We  are  amazed  at  the  want  of  moral  perception  which  the  treaty 
and  the  papers  submitted  with  it,  embody.  And  it  is  also  of 
serious  notice  that  so  long  as  a  treaty  is  pending,  interna 
tional  law  would  not  have  warranted  an  overt  act  on  the  part 
of  the  Hawaiians  to  restore  themselves  to  power  !  They  have 
pursued  the  only  policy  open  to  them. 

And  what  is  to  become  of  the  Monroe  doctrine?  Already, 
and  before  this  Hawaiian  scheme  is  consummated,  it  is  stated 
that —  “  the  Hawaiian  annexation  question  is  receiving  some 


“consideration  among  the  German  people.  The  Germans 
“  think  that  the  bulk  of  the  money  invested  in  Samoa  has 
“  come  from  them,  therefore  Germany  has  as  much  right  to 
“  absorb  Samoa  as  Uncle  Sam  has  10  take  in  Hawaii.  They  think 
“  that  Germany  should  be  allowed  to  take  Samoa  without  in- 
“  terference  on  the  part  of  the  United  States.  This  they 
“deem  a  simple  matter  of  fairness  and  justice.” 

Are  we  to  open  Pandora’s  box  of  colonial  acquisition  in  the 
face  of  Hawaii’s  protest,  and  not  only  violate  a  tenet  of  repub¬ 
lican  faith  but  a  continuous  and  insistent  policy  of  this  gov¬ 
ernment,  simply  to  annex  islands  2,100  miles  away?  Would 
we  be  justified  in  trading  away  or  even  endangering  the  stability 
of  so  important  and  far-reaching  a  policy  as  that  advanced  by 
Mr.  Monroe,  to  attain  a  sentimental  advantage  in  the  North 
Pacific,  equally  available  to  Germany  in  the  case  of  Samoa  in 
the  South  Pacific?  Why,  after  a  century  of  peace,  venture 
upon  uncertain  if  not  disputable  ground?  The  famous  line  of 
protest  promulgated  by  Monroe  and  made  a  part  of  our  na¬ 
tional  faith  and  recognized  by  foreign  nations,  did  not  stop 
at  a  denial  of  the  extension  of  foreign  domination  and  ag¬ 
gression  of  colonies  and  States  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic 
not  then  already  possessed  or  governed  by  European  nations. 
It  embraced  a  defensive  policy  on  our  part .  Under  it  we  may 
interfere  to  defend,  but  not  under  cover  of  that  policy  covet  or 
take  to  ourselves ,  and  especially  against  the  will  of  \he  people 
concerned,  that  which  we  deny  to  others.  We  can  readily 
conceive  how  the  “annexation”  of  Hawaii — without  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  people  of  the  islands,  might  please  England  and 
other  nations,  and  Spain  as  well,  and  yet  work  to  our  serious 
disadvantage  in  the  near  future.  We  may  need  a  vigorous 
application  of  the  Monroe  doctrine  much  nearer  home  than 
Hawaii,  sooner  than  we  are  now  able  to  discern.  We  surely 
ought  not  place  the  full  force  and  common  understanding  of  that 
doctrine  in  dispute  ! 

Mr.  Thurston  manifests  a  very  poor  conception,  too,  of  the 
intelligence  of  the  American  people,  not  at  all  complimentary 
to  a  nation  of  which  he  is  asking  favor,  when  he  talks  about 
the  necessity  of  our  possessing  Hawaii for  defense.  The  islands 
lie  2,100  miles  away  from  San  Francisco.  It  would  take  a 
battle  ship  stationed  at  Honolulu  a  short  week  to  reach  a  point 
of  attack  on  the  Pacific  coast  !  As  well  talk  about  stationing 
war  vessels  at  Liverpool  to  defend  Boston  or  New  York  !  The 
fact  is  that  instead  of  Hawaii  being  defensive  of  our  coast — it 
would  require  a  very  large  expenditure  to  defend  Hawaii  itself , 
and  it  requires  none  now  as  an  independent  nation.  The  sixty 
millions  of  dollars  of  duty  already  remitted  on  Hawaiian 
sugar  by  the  United  States  since  1876  would  long  ago  have 


22 


placed  ample  fortifications  and  battle  ships  on  the  Pacific 
coast  to  have  effectually  defended  it  from  any  ordinary  attack, 
and  the  eight  millions  per  annum  of  duty  on  sugar  that  would 
b z  forever  remitted  by  “annexation,”  would — in  a  very  few 
years,  cover  all  the  cost  of  the  war  vessels  and  fortifications 
necessary  to  insure  as  good  a  defense  of  our  Pacific  coast  as 
it  is  possible  to  make.  Independently  of  all  that,  however, 
we  already  have  right  and  title  to  Pearl  River  harbor,  the 
only  naval  refuge  in  the  islands,  of  any  account,  and  we  do 
not  quite  see  how  “annexation  ”  would  increase  our  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  further  advantage  ourselves  from  a  naval  standpoint. 
We  bought  that  harbor  and  it  has  cost  the  United  States  up¬ 
wards  of  $40,000,000  of  money  in  duty  remitted  on  sugar. 
We  cannot  therefore  explain  the  suggestion  advanced  that 
Hawaii  would  be  a  defensive  point  upon  any  other  hypothesis 
than  that  its  authors  feel  hard  pressed  for  better  argument. 
They  certainly  put  a  low  estimate  upon  the  sagacity  of  an 
American  Congress,  as  they  seem  to  assume  that  the  Ameri¬ 
can  people  are  mere  sentimentalists  on  the  Hawaiian  question. 

This  “  annexation  ”  sentiment  is  a  dangerous  national  mi¬ 
crobe  of  unlimited  potver  if  once  left  to  prey  upon  a  people 
easily  amused  with  new  ideas.  We  have  wisely  confined  the 
extension  of  our  domain,  thus  far,  to  practically  contiguous 
territory  which  has  given  the  United  States  great  strength 
and  solidity.  It  is  the  part  of  .prudence — and  of  economy  as 
well,  to  continue  that  policy.  It  is  already  asserted  that  a 
number  of  merchants  and  sugar  planters  of  Spanish  origin, 
in  conjunction  with  several  Cubans  of  prominence,  have  been 
holding  secret  meetings  and  corresponding  with  people  in 
various  parts  of  Cuba  with  the  object  of  ascertaining  the 
views  of  the  commercial  and  planting  community  of  Pinar 
del  Rio,  Havana,  Matanzas  and  Santa  Clara  provinces  as  to 
the  future  for  Cuba  most  likely  to  further  their  interests  and 
those  of  the  island  in  general. 

It  is  expected  that  the  majority  of  the  replies  will  be  fa¬ 
vorable  to  “  annexation  ”  of  Cuba  to  the  United  States.  The 
masses  of  the  American  people  would  see  no  reason  why  Cuba 
should  not  be  “annexed”  if  Hawaii  was,  especially  as  the 
people  of  Cuba  might  not  object,  as  do  a  majority  in  Hawaii. 
It  is  for  Congress  to  prevent  the  spread  of  this  microbe  and  thus 
prove  the  wisdom  of  the  words  of  the  late  President  Garfield, 
who  opposed  Plawaiian  annexation.  He  said — 

“I  wish  to  state  distinctly  on  the  general  question  of  an- 
“  nexation  of  out-lying  islands  or  territory — except  in  the 
“  North,  and  I  make  an  exception  there — that  I  trust  we  have 
“seen  the  last  of  annexation,  and  in  this  remark  I  include 
“  the  whole  group  of  the  West  India  Islands  and  the  whole  of 


23 


“  the  Mexican  territory  contiguous  to  the  United  States,  in- 
“  habited  as  it  is  by  a  portion  of  the  Latin  races,  strangely 
“  mixed  and  degenerated  by  their  mixture  with  native  races  ; 
“  a  population  and  a  territory  that  naturally  enfeebles  man  ; 
“  a  population  and  a  territory  that  I  earnestly  hope  may  never 
“be  made  an  integral  part  of  the  people  and  a  territory  of 
“  the  United  States.  We  occupy  a  portion  of  that  great 
“  northern  zone  which  girdles  the  world  and  which  has  been 
“  the  theater  of  the  greatest  achievements  of  civilization,  es- 
“  pecially  in  the  history  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  races  ;  but  should 
“we  extend  our  possessions  into  the  tropical  (Hawaiian) 
“  belt,  we  would  weaken  the  power  of  our  people  and  government"  ! 

And  why?  Because  while  the  English  may  have  been  will¬ 
ing  to  grab  islands,  she  never  allows  the  people  thereof  rep¬ 
resentation  in  her  Parliament,  but  with  us  the  moment  we 
“annex”  such  territory,  the  question  of  representation  arises. 
There  is  no  precedent  in  our  history  for  the  “annexation” 
of  distant  islands  and  their  incorporation  into  our  Union 
as  States.  The  scheme  is  not  to  hold  Hawaii  long  as  a 
territory !  We  want  no  rotten  boroughs,  especially  when 
they  lie  2,100  miles  away,  peopled  as  this  one  is  with  “con¬ 
tract”  laborers,  coolies,  lepers,  etc.,  numbering  in  1890  about 
90,000,  only  13,000  being  of  European  descent,  of  which 
1,928  only  were  Americans,  who  polled  only  637  votes  out  of 
a  total  of  13,593.  (See  House  Ex.  Doc.  1,  Part  1,  p.  598, 
53d,  3d) 

In  what  respect  have  those  now  in  power  in  Hawaii 
strengthened  their  moral  right  to  cede  the  islands  to  the 
United  States,  since  the  treaty  of  1893  was  withdrawn  from 
the  Senate? 

The  erection  of  an  oligarchy  in  Hawaii  since  1893  1  its  ^In¬ 
stitution  for  the  “Provisional  Government”  has  weakened 
rather  than  strengthened  the  so-called  Dole  government.  An 
oligarchy  is  no  improvement  over  a  limited  or  constitutional 
monarchy  !  Going  through  the  idle  ceremony  of  adopting  a 
“constitution”  at  the  hands  of  37  men — controlled  by  the 
same  persons  or  influences  which  under  our  flag  and  forces 
upset  the  lawful  Hawaiian  authority,  adds  no  moral  force  to 
the  original  position  occupied. 

No  delegates  were  chosen  by  the  people,  nor  has  the  oli¬ 
garchic  constitution  ever  been  ratified  ;  the  evidence  of  re¬ 
fusal  to  vote  being  indicative  of  the  reverse  of  what  we  are 
asked  to  assume,  as  it  also  overthrows  the  Secretary’s  as¬ 
sumption.  The  so-called  “legislature”  of  1896  7  was  not 
chosen  by  the  people — who  were  disfranchised,  only  a  very 
few  of  those  who  could  conscientiously  vote  having  exercised 
the  suffrage.  Hawaii  is  the  despotism  of  the  few .  Four  or  five 


24 


thousand  persons  are  seeking — for  selfish  political  and  pe¬ 
cuniary  advantage,  to  rule  109,000.  The  republic  of  the 
United  States  does  not  rest  upon  any  such  basis  as  that  the 
few  and  the  rich  should  govern  as  against  the  majority  !  That 
is  not  a  “republic”;  it  is  an  aristocracy,  a  plutocracy,  an 
oligarchy  ;  the  despotism  of  money.  The  fear  of  that  is  what 
the  American  people  are  contesting  to-day;  trusts  and  com¬ 
binations  that  seek  to  control  all  the  business  interests  and 
thereby  the  political  affairs  of  the  country  !  How  can  any 
political  party  in  the  United  States  lend  such  a  scheme  coun¬ 
tenance  in  Hawaii — by  annexation  ?  It  would  be  a  dangerous 
experiment. 

In  his  letter  accompanying  the  pending  treaty,  Secretary 
Sherman  frankly  intimates  that  there  was  grave  doubt  of  the 
authority  and  power  of  those  from  Hawaii  who  signed  that 
treaty  of  1893,  to  make  a  cession  of  the  islands.  The  Sec¬ 
retary  proceeds  to  excuse  the  present  treaty  upon  an  assump¬ 
tion ;  to  wit,  that  what  was  a  territory  in  1893  is  now  an  es¬ 
tablished  government — a  “republic”  approaching  the  United 
States  as  an  equal  !  A  self-constituted  oligarchy  maintained 
in  power  by  the  presence  of  our  war  ships  and  the  refusal  of 
the  people  to  take  a  test  oath  and  to  vote — pending  the  dis¬ 
posal  of  their  appeals  to  our  government  for  justice,  in  no 
wise  sustains  the  double  assumption  of  the  venerable  Secretary 
that  Hawaii  is  either  a  “republic”  or  that  she  approaches 
the  United  States  as  an  equal.  The  language  of  the  Secre¬ 
tary  clearly  indicates  that  some  excuse  was  deemed  necessary 
for  this  second  treaty  effort.  In  view  of  his  past  utterances 
the  present  attitude  of  the  Secretary  himself  in  approval  of 
this  treaty  was  evidently  regarded  so  manifestly  inconsistent 
that  he  resorted  to  an  interview,  in  which  he  was  made  to  say 
that  the  “annexation”  of  Hawaii  is  “exceptional.”  In  his 
Recollections,  however,  we  find  him  saying — 

“I  hope  that  our  people  will  be  content  with  internal 
“  growth,  and  avoid  the  complications  of  foreign  acquisitions. 
“  Our  family  of  States  is  already  large  enough  to  create  em 
“  barrassment  in  the  Senate;  and  a  republic  should  not  hold 
“  dependent  provinces  or  possessions.  Every  new  acquisition 
“will  create  embarrassments.  *  *  *  If  my  life  is  pro- 

“  longed  I  will  do  all  I  can  to  add  to  the  strength  and  pros- 
“perity  of  the  United  States,  but  nothing  to  extend  its  limits 
“or  to  add  new  dangers  by  acquisition  of  foreign  territory." 

The  attempt  of  the  Secretary  to  escape  the  logical  conclu¬ 
sion  which  this  broad  line  of  remark  emphasizes  and  on  which 
all  of  our  great  men  have  always  stood,  must  fail. 

Mr.  Jefferson,  in  a  letter  written  to  President  Madison, 
April  27,  1809,  said — 


25 


“  It  will  be  objected  to  our  receiving  Cuba  that  no  limit 
“  can  then  be  drawn  to  our  future  acquisitions.  Cuba  can  be 
“  defended  by  us  without  a  navy  ;  and  this  develops  the  principle 
}  “which  ought  to  limit  our  views.  Nothing  should  ever  be 

“  accepted  which  would  require  a  navy  to  defend  it."  5  Jeffer¬ 
son’s  Works,  443. 

Secretary  Frelinghuysen,  in  a  note  to  Mr.  Langston,  dated 
4  June  20,  1883,  says — 

“The  policy  of  this  Government,  as  declared  on  many  oc 
“  casions  in  the  past,  has  tended  toward  avoidance  of  posses- 
“  sions  disconnected  from  the  main  continent .” 

In  1884,  he  said  to  the  same  Minister — 

“A  conviction  that  a  fixed  policy,  dating  back  to  the  origin 
“of  our  constitutional  Government,  was  considered  to  make 
“it  inexpedient  to  attempt  territorial  aggrandizement  which 
“  would  require  maintenance  by  a  naval  force  in  excess  of  any 
“  yet  provided  for  our  national  uses,  has  led  this  Government 
“to  decline  territorial  acquisitions.  Even  as  simple  coaling- 
“  stations ,  such  territorial  acquisitions  would  involve  responsibility 
“  beyond  their  utility.  The  United  States  has  never  deemed  it 
“  needful  to  their  national  life  to  maintain  impregnable  fort¬ 
resses  along  the  world’s  highways  of  commerce.’’ 

From  all  these  expressions — perfectly  consistent  and  plain, 
how  is  it  possible  to  intelligently  assert  that  our  early  and 
continuous  policy  has  looked  to  the  eventual  “annexation” 
of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  or  any  other  colonial  possessions? 


\ 


P 


' 


■ 


i 


*7 

"''Wfmm j 


